CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 février 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   116 15.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   19 and 21 February 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing five Chamber judgments on Tuesday 19 February 2008 and 28 on Thursday 21 February 2008.   Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 11 a.m. (local time) on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 19 February 2008   Kuolelis, Bartoševičius and Burokevičius v. Lithuania (application no. 74357/01) The applicants, Juozas Kuolelis, Leonas Bartoševičius and Mykolas Burokevičius are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1930, 1928 and 1927, respectively. At the time of lodging their applications, Mr Bartoševičius was living in Vilnius and Mr Kuolelis and Mr   Burokevičius were detained in Rasų Prison (Vilnius). All the applicants were senior executives of the Lithuanian branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and were convicted in August 1999 for participating in subversive, anti-state activities. Their trial was popularly known as the “January 13 th case” in reference to a clash between the Soviet army and Lithuanian civilians, from 12 to 13 January 1991, in which 13 Lithuanians died and over a thousand were injured. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ allegations that they were prosecuted and convicted for offences which could not be foreseen under domestic or international law as, at the relevant time, Lithuania had not yet been recognised as an independent State. They also complained about the excessive length of the proceedings against them. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), 7 (no punishment without law), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Hamşioğlu v. Turkey (no. 2036/04) The applicant, Doğan Hamşioğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security) he alleges, in particular, that there was a delay in executing the order made for his release.   Yalçın v. Turkey (no. 15041/03) The applicant, Doğan Yalçın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and is currently in Batman Prison in Turkey. He was arrested in September 1996 on suspicion of belonging to the illegal organisation the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and was sentenced to the death penalty, which was commuted to life imprisonment in December 2003. Relying on Article 5   §§ 3 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complains of the length of his detention pending trial and of the lack of a remedy by which to challenge his continuing detention and secure his release. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Serino v. Italy (no. 679/03) Sürmelioğlu v. Turkey (no. 17940/03)     Thursday 21 February 2008   Ravon and Others v. France (no. 18497/03) The applicants are Jean-Maurice Ravon, a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Marseilles (France) and TMR International Consultant and SCI Rue du Cherche-Midi 66, two companies under French law based in Marseilles. The tax authorities, suspecting the applicant companies of tax fraud, conducted searches and seized property at their premises and at Mr Ravon’s home. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain that they did not have access to an effective remedy enabling them to challenge the lawfulness of the searches and seizures in question.   Alexandridis v. Greece (no. 19516/06) The applicant, Theodoros Alexandridis, is a Greek national who was born in 1976. In September 2005 he was admitted to practise as a lawyer at Athens Court of First Instance. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant alleges that his right not to manifest his beliefs was infringed as he was obliged when taking the oath of office to reveal his religious beliefs.   Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis v. Greece (no. 35332/05) The applicant company, Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis, is a Greek company which has its registered office in Agios Nikolaos (Crete). In the early 1970s it acquired land with a view to building a hotel complex on it. In 1984 the Ministry of Culture classified the region as a “zone A – absolute protection” zone, meaning that building of any kind was completely prohibited, although at the time the land had been acquired the relevant legislation did not prohibit the building of a hotel complex. After several unsuccessful attempts to secure a renewal of the initial building permit from the competent authorities, the applicant company asked the Culture Ministry to expropriate the property. Its application to have the authorities’ tacit refusal to expropriate the property set aside was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2005. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains of the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court and of its complete inability to make use of its property.   Kanellopoulos v. Greece (no. 11325/06) The applicants, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos and Vassilios Kanellopoulos, are Greek nationals who live in Pyrgos (Greece). In September 2005 the Pyrgos Administrative Court allowed their application for the setting-aside of the authorities’ tacit refusal to lift an expropriation order in respect of land belonging to them and to allow them to make use of the land. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain of the authorities’ refusal to comply with that decision.   Koskina and Others v. Greece (no. 2602/06) The applicants, Athina Koskina, Konstantinos Vlahos and Spyridon Metallinos, are Greek nationals who were born in 1927, 1952 and 1959 respectively and live in Corfu (Greece). The case concerns proceedings between the applicants and their neighbours concerning ownership of an estate. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of the excessive formalism demonstrated by the Court of Cassation in declaring one of their grounds of appeal inadmissible.   Pyrgiotakis v. Greece (no. 15100/06) The applicant, Konstantinos Pyrgiotakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1947 and is currently in the psychiatric clinic in Korydallos Prison. In June 2003 he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for his involvement in drug trafficking. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that his conviction resulted from the conduct of one of the police officers working on the case, who had acted as an “agent provocateur”.   Just satisfaction Bock and Palade v. Romania (no. 21740/02) The applicants are Marian Dorel Iosef Bock, a Romanian and German national born in 1940 who died in 2003, and Monica Ligia Daniela Palade, a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Satu-Mare (Romania). In a judgment of 15 February 2007 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Driha v. Romania (no. 29556/02)) The applicant, Constantin Driha, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Oradea (Romania). He was a firefighter and as such had the status of member of the armed forces. The applicant alleges that the benefit he received on his retirement was unlawfully made subject to income tax and complains that he was discriminated against, since other members of the armed forces in the same situation received the benefit free of tax. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   SC Marolux SRL and Jacobs v. Romania (no. 29419/02) The applicants are SC Marolux SRL, a company registered under Romanian law with its head office in Târgu-Mureş (Romania) and R. Jacobs, a Belgian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Maastrict (Netherlands). The applicants complain, in particular, that their right of access to a court and their right of property were infringed on account of the annulment of their action for compensation by the domestic courts for non-payment of stamp duty. They rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA (no. 37442/03) The applicant companies, SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA, are companies based in Collechio (Italy) and Tunari (Romania) respectively. They complain of the quashing of a final judgment in their favour following an appeal by the Procurator-General. They rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Varvara Stanciu v. Romania (no. 26533/05) The applicant, Varvara Cătălina Stanciu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Petroşani (Romania). The case concerns the action brought by her seeking to assert her exclusive ownership of parts of the house she was living in and to have the contract for the sale of the property in return for a life annuity declared null and void. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), she complains of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Matskus v. Russia (no. 18123/04) The applicant, Igor Rishardovich Matskus, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in St   Petersburg. He was a police officer before being dismissed in May 2002 following his arrest in March the same year on suspicion of extortion and corruption. He was released in September 2004. The criminal proceedings against him are apparently still pending. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him. He relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Günsili and Yayık v. Turkey (no. 20872/02) The applicants, Şükrü Günsili and Hasan Yayık, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960 and 1957 respectively and live in Istanbul and İzmir (Turkey). Both were officials in a national transport workers’ union. After being dismissed without prior notice or compensation by the transport company they worked for, union members took part in demonstrations and gatherings in front of the company’s premises. The events gave rise to a number of prosecutions against the dismissed workers and the trade union officials. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them, which ended in their acquittal.   Tunç v. Turkey (no. 20400/03) The applicant, Mehmet Hüsni Tunç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Batman (Turkey). The case concerns the refusal of his application for legal aid in the context of an action seeking damages. The applicant relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Usta and Others v. Turkey (no. 57084/00) The applicants, Fatma Usta, Hüseyin Usta and Hacer Bakkal Usta, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1938, 1938 and 1964, respectively, and live in Istanbul. Fatma and Hüseyin Usta are the parents and Hacer Bakkal Usta the wife of Taşkın   Usta. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that, following a clash on 17   April 1992 between the police and THKP-C militants in a flat in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul, Taşkın   Usta was shot dead by police officers and that the subsequent investigation into the incident was inadequate. They rely on Article   2 (right to life).   Yalçıner v. Turkey (no. 64116/00) The applicant, Mehmet Mustafa Yalçıner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Istanbul. At the relevant time he was a member of the executive committee of the Labour Party ( Emeğin Partisi ). In 1996 he was prosecuted for disseminating propaganda undermining the territorial integrity of the State and the indivisible unity of the Turkish nation on account of a speech he had given in 1993. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and excessively long. Under Article 10 (freedom of expression) he alleges, in particular, that his criminal conviction infringed his right to freedom of expression.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Johanna Huber v. Romania (no. 37296/04) Pappszasz v. Romania (no. 25920/05) Tulea v. Romania (no. 28282/04) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Străchinaru v. Romania (no. 40263/05) Vidu and Others v. Romania (no. 9835/02) In both these cases the applicants rely on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Ledovkin v. Russia (no. 43209/04) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicants in Kontogeorgas and Knez and Others also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Chatzinikolaou v. Greece (no. 33997/06) Kaparos v. Greece (no. 9702/06) Konstantinos Ladas v. Greece (no. 15001/06) Kontogeorgas v. Greece (no. 26010/06) Mariettos and Mariettou v. Greece (no. 17755/06) Knez and Others v. Slovenia (no. 48782/99)   *** Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.